Why Valerie Jarrett is Good for Women
March 13, 2009
by Sheryl Lee
|We are the New Media.
Not The New Agenda, specifically, but bloggers, and particularly feminist bloggers, who have a powerful set of common interests and common goals. As print media shambles toward increasing obsolescence, eclipsed by the rapidly evolving world of electronic information, we who communicate in this medium have an opportunity to come together and speak in a single, booming voice that will reverberate all the way into the precincts of power.
Make no mistake: we will be heard. Which is why the choice of Valerie Jarrett as Chair of the White House Commission on Women and Girls ought to be taken as a positive sign.
No one would accuse me of being an optimist, and yet I find the prospect of Valerie Jarrett heading up this initiative very encouraging—maybe more so than any move made by President Obama so far.
Why? Because she’s one of his three top advisors. She’s been close to him, advising him, for years. She’s one of Michelle Obama’s closest friends, and her former employer. She’s almost one of the family, and she has been entrusted with some extremely important and delicate tasks, such as overseeing the transition team.
Obama trusts her. He relies on her. Obviously, she’s proven herself an invaluable member of his inner circle.
So the fact that Obama has put her in charge of this Commission tells me that he understands the importance of careful handling, of moving the agenda forward, of getting the job done for women. He’s chosen someone in whom he has confidence. This tells me that he takes us seriously.
Because we’re not going to be gone in four years. The New Feminist Media is not going to fade into the background. We’ve only begun to fight, and in the next few years we will become stronger and more organized and more vocal. We’re not going to go back to that fractured, isolated state we were in before, where we despaired of ever seeing redress for women’s unequal status. We’re a force. We’ve found our tribe and we’ve found our voice.
Valerie Jarrett is a woman, and she gets some support from me for that fact alone. She’s a woman in power. We need more women in power — Yay, Valerie! It’s not fair to say that she’s anti-woman. She’s been a friend and advisor to Obama since long before he entered politics. I wouldn’t say Michelle Obama is anti-woman for supporting Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin, and I can’t make that accusation of Valerie Jarrett or Rahm Emanuel, either. They’re loyal to Obama, and I see loyalty and longevity as virtues.
I’m excited. In my mind’s eye I picture Valerie Jarrett, Michelle Obama, and Hillary Clinton and I think, this is going to be good for women.
UPDATE
Apparently, I’m not the only one with this view on the Jarrett appointment. Gloria Pan at Fem 2.0 has written an opinion the conclusion of which is so close to mine, that if I didn’t know better, I’d think I’d cribbed it from her.
And President Obama might just earn that Ms. cover, after all.
Word.
It’s a start. A very small start in my opinion, but a start nonetheless.
I like where things are going so far.
The things about that fight, as my spouse pointed out this morning, is that Jarrett has definitely been that–a fighter.
I personally understand the myriad reasons that so many of us object after the last year. I do. I just don’t think any of those objections are as important or ought to be voiced as stridently as the objection to the way women are treated in this country. Women have gotten bogged down in criticizing other women for long about 30 years, instead of turning their venom on the valid targets of their ire–the men in power who refuse to take action to change a thing.
I’ve never been a fan of Obama, and I continue to have my doubts about his performance. But this creation is a start. He didn’t give us much, perhaps because he predicted this kind of disunity. Why invest in a cabinet level post when you suspect the women it will service not support it? And we would be proving him right in the last Jarret thread.
Ouyang Dan – welcome!
Anna Belle: I agree completely. We’ve got to get over the idea that women have to be perfect to earn our support, or we’ll never get out of this rut we’ve been stuck in for decades. We’ve got to support women, period.
It seems to me that the purpose of The New Agenda is to seek change that moves society towards the stated goals, and to continue to do so until they are met. These goals will not be met, in total, during my lifetime much less during the Obama administration. In order to cause change TNA needs to express dissatisfaction with the status quo and both agitate and work for change.
If Ms. Jarrett’s goals in this new role are similar to TNA’s then these activities will indeed be supportive of her. If her goals are different then it will not be supportive. I ask, so what? TNA has its own goals, which are separate from the Obama Administration goals.
Thank you Sheryl.
A PROPOSAL FOR VALERIE JARRETT’S FIRST PROJECT:
The Boston Globe published a horrifying article today titled “Many Boston teens surveyed say Rihanna is at fault for assault”. The article reports the results of a survey conducted by the Boston Public Health Commission.
Here are a few quotes:
ACTION PLAN:
1. A TNA Press Release on violence against women that includes the following:
• The rising incidence of violence against women. See the Human Rights Watch article: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/200.....inst-women
• HIGHLIGHT this latest study of teens’ views
• IMPLORE Valerie Jarrett and her White House Commission on Women and Girls to make this issue a priority and address the views of teenagers immediately. She should undertake a massive and immediate PUBLIC HEALTH CAMPAIGN TO EDUCATE GIRLS, TEENS, AND ADULTS ABOUT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
• Speak out on the Rihanna – Brown case. Apparently there are even worse videos and evidence here that you can utilize (scroll down their blog to find the post on this): http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/
2. E-mail Valerie Jarrett about this and implore here to start with a massive public health campaign to educate girls, teens and adults about violence against women.
Here’s the email she used when she was heading Obama’s Transition Team: vjarrett@barackobama.com
3. Send your comments insisting Jarrett and her office making this issue an immediate priority that we want to see tangible action on to: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ (500 character limit)
4. Comment on the Boston Globe article here. (Need to counter the few idiotic comments posted there). One strategy would be to note in your comments what you would like Jarrett to do: http://www.boston.com/news/loc.....r_assault/
I disagree very strongly with this commentary and the comments and expect to see it at NOW but not at New Agenda. Where in the article above does it note the committee has no budget, no meeting schedule and, in fact, no importance.
It’s make-work.
I expect Kim Gandy to applaud it — and she did — I expect more.
Where is the awareness Martha Burke showed when commenting to Politico:
“I think it falls far short of what’s needed,” Martha Burk, a former chairwoman of the National Council of Women’s Organizations, said about the new board. The council will be headed by two top Obama advisers, Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen.
“With all respect to Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen, both of whom are excellent folks. … I think both are going to find this is one of many things they’re responsible for and I think they’ll be stretched to give it proper attention. We have told them that,” Burk said.
http://www.politico.com/news/s.....19936.html
This article is of poor quality and disappointing.
I’m not a cheerleader, I’m a grown ass woman. In effect Barack’s done nothing. He’s told me I have a pretty dress on today and I’m supposed to be so charmed that I forget all other issues.
I expect stronger and more analytical pieces from New Agenda. This is not up to the standards it does not try to go beneath the cheery headline.
I’ve posted an Action Plan which is awaiting moderation. I meant to include the following link to the Boston Globe article, ” Many Boston teens surveyed say Rihanna is at fault for assault”, in my post.
Here’s the link: http://www.boston.com/news/loc.....r_assault/
Thanks ER !! Now is the perfect time for Jarrett to speak out on this issue.
While painful for those who are having trouble moving on and still harbor bitterness over the election, this really is the path forward. We can sit still and bitch and moan or we can keep the pressure on the office with the most power to help women.
I like this course Sheryl and Amy and appreciate your taking it.
Keesha,
I appreciate you expressing yourself honestly and openly, so thank you. That said, I don’t think anyone is asking anyone else to be a cheerleader. I think the point is to maybe wait and see what happens before we criticize and object.
I read this morning where one of Jarrett’s priorities is to collect data for a survey of government employment specifically about gender diversity and fair pay. This would be a valuable tool in the arsenal of any feminist organization–to have a clear picture of how the government performs. I’m getting ahead of myself here, but the idea is to eventually reform the government at every level until it serves as a model for business. I’m not suggesting that’s what Jarrett would do, but the survey is the perfect start to that process. And if nothing else, Jarret has a proven record of getting major political players to see bigger pictures with regard to a number of issues and campaigns. Perhaps she can employ these skills if we only let her.
Why Valerie Jarrett is bad for women:
Just for starters…. She is a crony of the Obama family who has sfaik no background in women’s issues, and did not even speak out against sexism during the campaigns of 2008. She has demonstrated loyalty to Obama but none to women; her silence (as well as her failure to ‘vote for the woman’ in 2008) suggests the opposite of loyalty to women. Subject to verification, she has been reported as saying that existing initiatives (dating to the Bush era?) are sufficient; imo this Democratic dominance is a time for establishing new initiatives that can prove useful in the future.
WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION:
Please post your comments at the Boston Globe site in response to their article, ““Many Boston teens surveyed say Rihanna is at fault for assault”. We need to counter the incredibly misogynistic, dangerous views about violence against women being posted there now in much greater numbers!
1. POST YOUR COMMENTS HERE: http://people.boston.com/artic.....6828983711
2. Please activate PUMA RESPONDERS! Please post this to other women’s sites that can respond. Thanks.
3. Need more information? Brown’s abuse against Rihanna is even more horrific than that reported in the general media. See “Unseen Rihanna Photos Are Worse” here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/v.....n-rihanna/
More information here: http://guerillawomentn.blogspo.....lt-on.html
“It’s not fair to say that she’s anti-woman. She’s been a friend and advisor to Obama since long before he entered politics.”
Okay, and what has Obama done that has been pro-woman? I do not understand the logic of that statement. I remain skeptical of this council. What does Obama believe is beneficial to women? The creation of this council could very well be an attempt to appease/pacify/convince the pro-women group into joining his side while doing nothing at all to actually support women.
Following up here on ER’s comments….
Actually, I’ll go so far as to say that, if Jarrett does not speak out on this issue (reducing domestic violence) SOON, we who support the goals of TNA, NOW, etc. should seriously question having this as one of our goals. Why? Well, because:
“…Why? Because she’s one of his three top advisors. She’s been close to him, advising him, for years. She’s one of Michelle Obama’s closest friends, and her former employer. She’s almost one of the family, and she has been entrusted with some extremely important and delicate tasks, such as overseeing the transition team.
Obama trusts her. He relies on her. Obviously, she’s proven herself an invaluable member of his inner circle.
So the fact that Obama has put her in charge of this Commission tells me that he understands the importance of careful handling, of moving the agenda forward, of getting the job done for women. He’s chosen someone in whom he has confidence. This tells me that he takes us seriously.”
————————————————————-
If the most powerful woman does not see fit to address this issue—and address it now, it does give us an indication of how effective this appointment is going to be.
Are we going to revel in our “giddiness” with this appointment, or are we going to continue to exert pressure?
I think up until now, President Obama’s record on women has been weak. For example, picking only 6 of ultimately 24 cabinet picks is simply unacceptable. Having Larry Summer in a powerful position that did not require Senate approval is a slap in the face.
BUT, BUT…this is a positive development. IMO, being new to the women’s movement myself, I think some fresh faces are needed. Would we rather that Obama pick one of the dinosaurs who have done nothing for pure women’s rights in years? I like the idea of a can-do woman who has Obama’s ears. I say let’s give her a chance. If she falls down, we will speak up.
I’d rather we have kept quiet and wait to praise her
We didn’t “praise” her. We said we should work with her and we should. She got the job. She is in a position to do some good. She might let us down, but she might not. It’s not going to stop TNA from doing what we have been doing all along in the mean time.
I would also we rather have Obama pick someone who shared our feelings about the misogyny.
I know, but who Karen? Hillary and Sarah are busy.
Valerie is a fresh face. She might come to understand our POV. Don’t forget most national women’s group did not even speak out about the misogyny against Sarah because of her party – ugh! TNA has to set new standards!
No, Amy. We don’t wait for her to fall down—that hurts all of us. We give her things to do. We have to be a part of setting the expectations. Then we see how she has done. It’s the only fair way of judging her performance.
This crack within TNA supporters – whether or not Obama is a sexist and whether or not he purposefully fostered sexism against HRC and Mrs. Palin and whether or not to despise all those close to Obama – should somehow be discussed and resolved for the purpose of a greater cause, advancing women’s rights.
To date, Obama has not fully lived up to the expectations of the activists for women’s rights but there is an impressive group of women at cabinet level, director level and deputy level positions who could use TNA’s support and constructive criticism in doing their jobs so that the cause of women’s rights is advanced.
MaryL – we are coming up with a way to do what you have mentioned. If you read Obama’s speech, he lists 3 priorities (fair pay, reducing VAW and corp leadership) which are 3 of TNA’s goals. In fact, excerpts from his speech almost seem lifted from our blog:
“Obama cited statistic to back up his case: Women earn just 78 cents for every dollar men make; 1 in 4 women still experiences domestic violence; women are 49 percent of the work force but only 3 percent of Fortune 500 chiefs.”
Our voices at TNA are being heard. No other national org has asked for these things. And you bet we will keep speaking out. We’re not drinking koolaid and calling it a day!!!
Kevin,
I don’t think folks are ready to put aside the misogyny in that campaign against Sarah and Hillary. I for one am not. But I want to put it into something useful so in 2010 and 2012 and in the future, we can do things to change our national dialogue and make this behavior unacceptable.
Kevin, there is no crack, but we do discuss our disagreements and work them out.
Valerie is a safe choice for Obama. She will defuse and deflect any real changes that will benefit women that any brave member of the committee might offer.
This is the purpose of the chairperson, to follow the agenda of the person who nominates her. We have watched and heard his misogyny for months now. Sounds like a huge waste of time but it will quiet the “ladies” and that’s the purpose.
It’s obvious that Keesha and Flora remember the Primaries and realize that there are plenty of women out there with a track record who are not dinosaures – I term I call disgusting, petty and way out of line.
Capable, smart women who have dedicated their lives to the women’s movement should not ever be dissed by a sister in that manner. Shame!
We give her things to do. Exactly.
And we need to get together on this.
The giddiness is optional, but the pressure isn’t.
“We give her things to do. Exactly.
And we need to get together on this.
The giddiness is optional, but the pressure isn’t.”
Alright, I like that. We do need to start pressuring more people around.
Thanks, Amy, but I think we need to come up with small steps, an easily achievable set of deliverables that we expect from Jarrett.
I had to laugh when I read upthread that Jarrett is working on collecting data for a survey—Is this how we want her to spend her time? We all will not live long enough!
How about asking her to comment on the Rihanna/Brown domestic violence situation? It’s one of those priorities mentioned by Obama, is it not? She can do a Press Release denouncing domestic violence. Simple…
Amy and Karen, I appreciate you thoughts and great news regarding the talking – that is progress.
Twandx, your statements:
“We have watched and heard his misogyny for months now”
“She will defuse and deflect any real changes that will benefit women that any brave member of the committee might offer.”
On what actions by the Obama administration do you support the belief that it exhibits a hatred for women? On what actions by Ms. Jarrett do you support the belief that she will not take her job seriously?
keesha,
I agree with you that the ‘Council’ itself looks pretty much like a token non-thing so far — but imo it’s worth supporting for what it’s worth
, as a first step.
The creation of such a ‘Council’ could be (or grow into) a good thing Or it may function (if it ever gets any personnel or meetings) as someone in another thread described the Human Resources Departments of most corporations:
An HR person is considered successful if the boss perceives the employees to be under control – no headaches, no controversy. An employee who complains about strip club outings is “creating” a problem where none previously existed (in the mind of the HR person). The interests of the HR person — no controversy — and the interests of the complaining employee — yes controversy — are at odds.
Too many people lose out because they assume HR’s job is to make sure the work environment is fair, or to enforce the law. Its not. HR’s job is to keep things quiet and ‘under control.’ Those are two different things.
Giving the Council to a trusted crony with no credits in the field, makes it seem likely to be the latter rather than the former — just one more title for that crony to wear, to pre-empt action by any troublemaker who would really work for women rather than for Obama. (I’ve lost the cite for two other titles Jarrett has been given).
At this point we have a chance for some leveredge — to applaud the Council but demand a better head for it. We feminists should be announcing a list of women who are more appropriate and better qualified for the post.
ER –
Thanks for the action plan and links. Silent people are never heard, supplicants are always ignored.
I wouldn’t admire any endorsement from Fem 2.0. I think they are anti-feminist users, who will take over feminist blogs and efforts. I didn’t have to read this below to know that. I see among their supporters so-called feminists who in my book are nothing more than crass endorsers of anything that will put money in their pockets, even if it’s sex slavery and women hating porn.
The Colonizing of the Feminist Blogosphere: Why Feminists Should Have Boycotted Fem 2.0
http://www.womensspace.org/php.....ed-fem-20/
FYI: New post upstairs.
Sis,
I don’t know all the folks associated with Fem 2.0, but agree with you that several affiliated groups are not groups we would seek to follow.
How about asking her to comment on the Rihanna/Brown domestic violence situation? It’s one of those priorities mentioned by Obama, is it not? She can do a Press Release denouncing domestic violence. Simple…
Unfortunately I don’t think it’s enough to simply denounce domestic violence. There are plenty of people who’d agree with a general statement such as “violence against women is wrong” while they hold the very attitudes that minimize, excuse, and promote such violence, particularly if it occurs in a “domestic” context. What’s needed is an honest discussion about these attitudes, and that’s not quite so simple. If Jarrett decides to tackle this issue, let’s hope that she either has more of a background in feminist thought than we realize or that she can get up to speed quickly, or what she says might end up making matters worse. We’re so conditioned to believe that women are responsible for men’s bad behavior and that it’s up to women to change said behavior that I’ve seen even self-identified feminists fall into the victim-blaming trap on occasion. For a short but surprisingly good article on how to discuss the attitudes that perpetuate domestic violence surrounding the Chris Brown case, check out Newsweek’s Domestic Abuse Myths: Five mistakes we make when we talk about Rihanna and Chris Brown’s relationship (h/t to Shakesville).
Sasha said: “If Jarrett decides to tackle this issue, let’s hope that she either has more of a background in feminist thought than we realize or that she can get up to speed quickly, or what she says might end up making matters worse.”
If Jarrett needs on the job training, then she isn’t ready for the job. Hundreds of other women have background and recent experience and are ready.
If Jarrett is going to make mistakes, let her make them loud and clear right now, in the spotlight, where they can be corrected. And hopefully will lead to some more qualified woman bring brought into the job.
Please see my ACTION PLAN above (posted at 10:25 am) for things we can ask Valerie Jarrett to do right now. Links are provided.
What about TNA (Amy? Sheryl?) interviewing Valerie?
You could introduce TNA and get her to talk about the issues facing women, what goals she hopes to accomplish.
Would be interesting….
What about TNA (Amy? Sheryl?) interviewing Valerie?
You could introduce TNA and get her to talk about the issues facing women, what goals she hopes to accomplish.
Would be interesting….
I believe there’s some precedent for this, and it seems the best way to proceed.
I won’t support a woman who did not (1) support Hillary Clinton or (2) speak out against the sexism in the presidential primary and campaigns in 2009. The silence from women organizations and women in power was deafening and I will not spend my precious time supporting such people who do not speak out for women when it matters. I am not “bitter” as someone above suggests. I just prefer to support women who support other women . . . oh, and might I add that experience really does matter. Jarrett doesn’t appear to have an RELEVANT experience.
MaryL,
That’s a great idea! We’ll learn something just from how Jarrett reacts to the invitation: whether she responds at all, agrees, makes conditions….
Let’s have an entry about what questions she should be asked. Here’s a start:
1. When if ever will the Family Planning money (which Obama had removed from the Stimulus) be put up for passage?
MaryL, terrific idea for TNA to interview Valerie Jarrett! We need to build bridges and alliances, to keep visible, and to keep the pressure on. An interview with Valerie would accomplish all three.
ER said, “We need to build bridges and alliances, to keep visible, and to keep the pressure on. An interview with Valerie would accomplish all three.”
I agree with two out of three.
But … build alliances with whom? With Jarrett? The interview should offer her pillows?
I’ve been puzzling over why it was “no way no how” to Kim Gandy for a post in the new administration — but TNA seems to be rolling over for Jarrett.
I’m not defending Gandy. She didn’t ’support the woman’ presidential candidate in 2008. But Gandy at least had many years in the women’s movement, had supported many womens issues — and Jarrett has no such credits.
Flora: “We’ll learn something just from how Jarrett reacts to the invitation: whether she responds at all, agrees, makes conditions….”
“…build alliances with whom? With Jarrett?”
Exactly, Flora. Let’s see how she reacts and we can learn a lot by just listening. If we can ask questions, even better.
Yes, we need to build alliances with her first; it’s an opportunity to offer our goals and to show her what we EXPECT of her.
kitkat: I understand exactly where you are coming from. I view Jarrett as a means to an end. She has the position, the power, the President’s ear. If we want to get things done and get people to act—she’s got the “name on the letterhead,” but WE need to write what goes into the letter. So let’s make the best use of this opportunity and not waste it. If you are correct in your assessment, I would like to find out sooner than later if Jarrett does not turn out to be a women’s advocate or the position is just windowdressing—I don’t want to wait another FOUR years.
According to Sweet at Chicago Sun Times, “Tina Tchen, director of the White House Office of Public Liaison, will serve as executive director of the group.”
Even though Tchen did not “support the woman” in 2008 (in fact she was a major fundraiser for the man), she does seem to have at least a little credit in women’s issues.
During law school, she was state vice president of the National Organization for Women and was one of the leaders in writing and lobbying successfully for the Illinois Criminal Sexual Assault Act, according to the Chicago Lawyer.
swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/12/chicagoan_tina_tchen_going_to.html
Maybe TNA should start with interviewing Tchen.
Flora–I’m not sure if it is the exact same program, but family planning funds were included in the appropriations bill that Obama signed a couple of days ago. Plannedparenthood.org has some info on one of the provisions.
To rampart on March 13 @11 a.m. – thanks for the demeaning characterization but I am not going to just “sit and bitch and moan.”
You sound like a guy – they often resort to that phrase in the face of female power.
I have many goals, some of them shared on this blog. TNA has a lot to say that is worthy and almost all of it includes a next step – more research, calls or email to congress, etc. No sitting and no bitching.
Take your anti-female language elsewhere. We are empowered, intelligent and effective women and I am proud to be part of a group that defends and advocates for women of all political stripes. In fact I just love it.
Amy Siskind is starting to look like a really good senate prospect, if you ask me.
Off you go, rampart.
Buh-bye.
CLR,
It’s good news, but all it does is restore a provision for “for low-income women and college students” that was taken out of an appropriations bill in 2007.
What we should be keeping the pressure on, is something for expanding family planning that was labeled ” $200 million for condoms” and taken out of the fall Stimulus bill at Obama’s insistance (over Pelosi’s protests. There’s also a provision to let states iirc get into a Medicare birth control program with less red tape: a large net savings of paperwork expense.
Here’s more on the restoration:
http://www.plannedparenthood.o.....-21021.htm
January 2009
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) introduces the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act, a bipartisan, no-cost solution to the problem of birth control pricing. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduces a similar bill in the Senate.
March 2009
A no-cost provision to fix affordable birth control is added to the appropriations bill. Thanks to Planned Parenthood supporters, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) fails in his attempt to try and strip the provision out of the bill. The appropriations bill passes the Senate and is sent to President Obama for his signature.”
Must go soon, but I just wanted to add this fact about the actual make-up of the ‘Council.’
So if the ‘Council’ ever has a meeting and anything that matters comes up for a vote, look who will have the most votes.
“While the new council does not have Cabinet rank, the whole Cabinet, from the Secretary of Defense to the US Ambassador to the United Nations, is required to serve on it.” “The members are all Cabinet Secretaries and the heads of numerous federal agencies.” http://www.fem2pt0.com/?p=855
So is it now about 75% men in Obama’s cabinet? They will be automatically on the Council and able to outvote anything the women might come up wtth. (Is the gender parity any better among the “heads of numerous federal agencies”? — Of course as he needs in future, Obama could make a new executive order defining just which of those heads are on the Council from one meeting to the next.
Headed by two cronies, peopled by a large percentage of male appointees…. Very safe design….
Florida Lady — I agree! At the risk of thumping my same old drum, we don’t need women in power who simply do things the way men do them. I don’t understand men standing face to face and hitting each other for “fun” either. I don’t think I ever will.
Women can multi-task, which means we can have intelligent, stimulating debate on this site and get lots of other things done at the same time.
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...